The rise of the disgruntled

Just about seven years ago, shortly after President Obama took office, pockets of unrest started forming throughout the nation. Some of those groups began identifying themselves with variations of the Tea Party name, holding rallies and other events that generally focused on fiscal matters. Some of these independent groups said that their use of the Tea Party label was a throwback salute to the rebellious Boston Tea Party event of 1773. Others were more specific, saying that the TEA acronym stood for “Taxed Enough Already” and that their push was for major cuts in taxes at all levels, even if that meant eliminating some government services.

It seems strangely (and conveniently) coincidental that the movement grew to prominence at precisely the time that Democrats regained the White House with the election of the first non-white president. Defenders of the Tea Party’s honor have made claims that the roots of their cause took hold well before 2009, though one is hard pressed to realistically remember any such activity. Of course, people have been complaining about taxes since the first tax was collected.

As the assorted Tea Parties were gaining strength, the USA saw growth within another sub-culture… the sovereign citizen movement.  Essentially believing that the federal and most state governments have no authority, these individuals often refuse to pay taxes or fees imposed by government agencies. Many don’t register their vehicles, obtain driver’s licenses, or even use ZIP codes… as these are enacted by a government they don’t recognize.

Probably the most famous personality of the sovereign citizen realm is Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who for over twenty years has refused to pay fees for grazing his cattle on federally owned land. Bundy became somewhat of a cult hero when a standoff developed between the US Bureau of Land Management and a group of armed supporters. The matter ended without violence when government officials withdrew, effectively giving Bundy a victory. As this column was being written, three of Bundy’s sons are organizers of an armed occupation of federal property in Oregon, clearly emboldened by their family’s previous encounter.

There have been other notable occupations of federal property -- Alcatraz, Wounded Knee -- that ended in violence. But then, those occupiers weren’t white dudes with Twitter and Facebook accounts. But I digress.

A third faction that has gained in popularity over the past few years are militia groups. Usually heavily armed and self-trained, less than 200 of these anti-government groups were known to exist in 2008. Fueled by fears of a possible government crackdown on gun ownership helped the growth of these groups throughout the country, even though no real effort to limit the rights of Americans to own guns has materialized. Of course, just the implied threat, real or imagined,  is enough to motivate gun sales and discourage most elected officials from considering legislation that could be seen as impeding the average American from purchasing whichever weapon he so chooses.

It is right about here that someone will argue that President Obama’s plans for executive orders that, if fully enacted, could curtail gun sales. But most of what the president is offering are just suggested guidelines, and the strongest would require funding that the Republican-led Congress is not about to approve. Meanwhile, gun dealers are reporting a huge boost in sales… so let’s put aside any worries about how the government is going to empty out the Average Joe’s gun cabinet.

Nope, there’s no way the government is going to do anything to disarm the citizenry. But it is also clear that the government is no closer to solving the problem of gun violence.

So far, we’ve discussed the Tea Party, sovereign citizens, and militias. As diverse as these groups may be, they have many similarities. They all distrust government. They all have big problems with government actions like taxes and regulations. And they all saw intense growth in reaction to the 2008 election.

And… the lines between them are increasingly blurred.

I’m not saying that these three groups have exactly the same goals. But it’s really hard to tell where one stops and another starts. Log onto a random Tea Party website and you’re just as likely to see a discussion about the Second Amendment as you are efforts to trim taxes. Talk to a militia member and you’ll hear complaints about entitlement programs. And the Bundy family is proof that a large feature of the sovereign citizen movement is the combination of anti-tax sentiments and gun proliferation.

One thing is certain: you won’t find too many Democrats in those groups. And that’s a big problem for the GOP. You see, if the Republican party allows itself to be defined by those on the fringe, it has virtually no chance to field candidates who can draw votes from outside their own party.

And that’s a recipe for disaster come Election Day.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald January 7, 2016.)

Home of the…?

I’m beginning to wonder if it’s time to rewrite the national anthem. Not the whole song, just the lyrics… and only a small part. Really, just one word.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not knocking the anthem or the sentiment of the verses. It’s just that one word. We don’t seem to be living up to that word.

Now don’t get excited. There are many, many Americans for whom that word is appropriate. Some, like retired U.S. Army Captain Florent Groberg who was recently awarded the Medal of Honor, it’s inadequate. Capt. Groberg was part of an elite security detail in Afghanistan when he confronted a suicide bomber. His efforts to shove the man away from the other soldiers in the patrol saved many lives, though Groberg himself was severely injured.

Groberg’s story is one of true heroism, but it’s not unique. Military personnel, law enforcement, firemen… I’m sure you can think of plenty examples. And let’s not discount everyday heroes… the people who put in a hard day’s work, who wring every last drop of sweat equity out of their paychecks, knowing that they could be downsized or outsourced at any minute.

And we need to recognize the boys and girls who do what’s right even if it means risking acceptance by the popular kids… standing up to bullies and, respectfully, challenging authority when a wrong has been committed.

These and more are… brave.

Unfortunately, the people who speak on our behalf… those that we entrust with the most valuable possession we Americans have, our votes… typically display the least courage. Some would argue that casting a “no” vote here and there or making a chest-thumping speech on C-Span takes an iron will and a steely spine, but I’m not buying it.

Politicians, you want to show me an act of bravery? Then let’s see you support something that is beneficial to everyone, not just your big-money contributors or your political base. Let’s start by agreeing to fix our roads and bridges, and I don’t mean a scheme that shifts funds away from other public services. Roll up your sleeves and come up with a plan that makes our highway system the envy of the world once again. Make it more functional and safer.

And for crying out loud… spend the money to get it done! We Americans kick in a huge chunk of cash every year. The least you could do is spend it on things that we need. Yes, we need a well-funded military, no argument here. But don’t focus too much on dropping bombs halfway across the world while ignoring the infrastructure that’s crumbling here at home.

While you’re at it, take a stand for what’s right… even if it means a handful of extremists will scream at your at your next town hall. Let’s hear you say something positive about independently-owned family farms, public school teachers, or even (gasp!) journalists. Acting like a grown-up might mean you’ll face a primary challenge from the fringe. But if you show up and do your job like we pay you to do, you’ll give us a good reason to vote you back in.

On the subject of showing up for work, let’s see you do something about your schedule. When House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy unveiled the 2016 calendar for Congressional House workdays, there were too many empty spaces that need filling. What were you thinking? Only 110 days in session?!?!? That’s even less than the 133 days on your schedule in 2015. Is it asking too much for us to expect you to put in a string of 40-hour weeks?

Spare me the stories about how you need all those other days to catch up on “district work” when we know you use that time to give stale speeches at fundraisers and play golf with your special-interest lobbyists.

There’s one more thing you can do to show that you’re worthy: be honest in all that you do and say. Telling blatant lies may be a great way to get yourself booked on the most popular talk shows, resulting in more and more campaign contributions, but it just makes us trust you less and less.

We’ve got people running for the most powerful job in government who act like they’re allergic to truth. They tell huge lies and when confronted with the facts, just tell bigger lies. Is that the kind of leadership we deserve? Based on the crowds they draw, I’m beginning to wonder.

Here’s one more way you can show you’re worthy: reject and condemn the candidates whose campaigns are filled with bigotry and unkindness. Do what’s right… even if you face negative feedback… and we’ll be more willing to consider you “brave”,

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald, December 3, 2015.)

Get out of the kitchen

We are less than one year away from the election that will determine the next occupant of the White House. We’re not quite to the point where the real action takes place -- that’s reserved for after voting starts with the Iowa caucuses -- but things are starting to heat up. We’ve already seen a handful of debates, and the first of the failed candidates have dropped out of their respective races. In this 24-hour news cycle that we live in, we are constantly bombarded with the slings and arrows from both sides of the battle. To be honest though, the candidates on both sides are waging relatively boring campaigns. Maybe they’re just saving the good stuff for later.

From what I’ve seen and heard so far, the arguments seem more like childish taunts than legitimate discussions on policy. If you could bottle the most prominent comments by presidential hopefuls these days, you’d have an impressive collection for your whine cellar.

Contenders from both parties have made quite a bit of noise about the style and staging of their debates. They don’t like the questions. They don’t like the moderators. They don’t like the private conference rooms provided to them. They don’t like the temperature settings in the auditoriums. They don’t like the information that appears on the TV screen. They don’t like it when other candidates ask them questions.

And they whine about not getting enough questions, often spending more time complaining about not getting enough attention when they could use that time to (gasp!) actually answer the question.

Essentially, they don’t like debates. But they love the large audiences and free airtime the debates provide.

Let’s be honest: the overwhelming majority of candidates in both parties aren’t seriously trying to become president. What they really want is to boost their chances at making huge sums of money on speaking tours… or hawking their latest books… or maybe landing an easy money job with a cable news organization. Some just like to be the center of attention.

Oh sure, many of the contenders sound like they’re in it to win it all. But before you get excited about any one of them, I encourage you to view this presidential election from the right perspective: treat it like a job opening with you as the employer.

The first thing you should do is consider the responsibilities of the position. Granted, the average person doesn’t know all of the daily goings-on in the Oval Office, but anyone who took a single civics class in high school should have a basic understanding of how our government is supposed to work and what is expected of the people we elect to run it.

It’s not much different than hiring someone to work on your car. You want to know that the person with the tools has a pretty good idea of what he’s doing. Like me, you wouldn’t want someone tinkering with your engine who doesn’t know the difference between a distributor and an alternator. In the same way, I don’t have much confidence in handing the reins of our federal government to an amateur. That’s not to say that someone with many years in politics will automatically do a better job, but at least he or she should have a pretty good idea of what’s involved.

Then again, we Americans elect 435 people to the House every two years plus a third of the Senate, and there are plenty of know-nothings in that bunch.

As the field narrows and the eventual nominees become clear, we should do whatever it takes to find out where they stand on the things we think are important. It’s a waste of time for candidates to talk about what they’re against. I want to hear them explain, in detail, what they are for. Yes, I know that they’ll say anything to get elected. Even lie.

Newsflash: they all lie.

But only the informed voter knows how to catch them in the lie… and to hold them accountable. The only way to be informed is to ask questions, especially questions that the candidates don’t want to answer. Which brings us back to the current debates.

Right now, many candidates are trying to mold future debates into something that makes them look better. They simply want to stand in front of the camera and give prepared remarks, the scripts they practice over and over. They definitely don’t want you to knock them off their stride.

You want to know how their tax plans work? Just trust them, they say, and don’t try to confuse them with math. You heard them say one thing last week and then the complete opposite this week? Don’t confront them with facts, they tell you.

Sorry, but if you want my vote… you’d better be ready to earn it. And that starts with being able to take the heat.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald, November 5, 2015.)

False Prophets

If you’re a regular reader of this column, you’ve probably noticed that I have no use for people who substitute fiction for fact. I don’t mind if someone disagrees with me and wants to argue about it. However, if that argument is based on falsehoods, you’re wasting your time.

It’s one thing to share your opinion. For example, you might say that Johnny Unitas is the greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL. I’d probably be tempted to come back with Joe Montana’s career stats. We’d likely spar back and forth a bit and never reach a real consensus because we’re both offering opinions from our individual perspectives.

It would be different if you said Johnny Unitas had more passing touchdowns than Joe Montana. In that case, you would be able to go to the record books and show me the facts. [Note: Unitas is #9 in TD completions. Montana is #11.] See the difference? Instead of relying on your emotions which can skew your thinking, stating your case with solid evidence -- real facts that can be proven without a doubt -- is the way to win an argument.

It’s really that simple: if you stake your reputation on a specific matter, make sure you’ve got your facts straight. As it is with sports chatter, so it is with politics, religion, and any other topic of discussion.

I mentioned politics and religion because it’s clear that many people are willing to go to great lengths to use one to influence the other. Such is the case with many prominent entertainers in those two realms.

Take for example Dr. Ben Carson, a truly gifted neurosurgeon and political neophyte, who recently was a guest on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. He used the occasion of his Meet the Press interview to let it be known that he thinks people of certain faiths should not be elected President of the United States. Specifically, he said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Notice that Dr. Carson wasn’t talking about anyone specifically… giving reasons why the actions and attitudes of a named individual would disqualify that person from holding office. No, Carson is suggesting that you should withhold your vote solely based upon a candidate’s religion. Why? Because Carson thinks that, when it comes to a candidate’s faith, “...if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.”

Carson -- and anyone who agrees with him on this point -- is arguing that there needs to be a method of determining a person’s qualifications for elected office based upon religion. And while Carson is entitled to his opinion, the fact is clear: the Founders of this nation rejected that notion. Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution includes this key phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Essentially, no one’s faith is ever to be used to challenge his ability to serve. Equally important, no one’s faith is ever to be used to give a candidate an easier pathway to office. Try telling that to the television preachers who lead their followers in prayers calling for misfortune and death to fall upon their political opponents.

It is discouraging that people like Dr. Carson will declare their devotion to the Constitution while also being so horribly ignorant to what the document has to say. But then, it’s not that surprising, since we live in an age where it’s becoming commonplace to hear someone claim that their religious beliefs grant them authority over others.

The Constitution does grant a certain collection of rights to you and me, but it’s up to us to understand the limits to those rights. As free speech advocate Zechariah Chafee Jr wrote: “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.”   

Dr. Carson is not alone. The current presidential campaign has several hopefuls who are pandering to extremists. making promises to impose some form of legal framework that would regulate many aspects of both public and private life based upon religious tenets.

Gee, that sounds a lot like Sharia law, doesn’t it?

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald October 1, 2015.)

Carson would seek Trump's "wisdom"

This should tell you plenty about Dr. Carson, who is a very talented neurosurgeon but far from gifted in leadership skills.
If he thinks adding Trump as an advisor would bring in wisdom to his administration... that shows us:
1. Carson is a poor judge of Trump's "wisdom".
2. Carson's potential administration would have to be the opposite of wise if the addition of Trump would be an improvement.

Born in the USA?

My great-grandfather was born in Europe. He met and married my great-grandmother there and a few years later moved to the USA. Over time, they raised a family. They were poor by most standards, but they worked hard -- my great-grandfather was a cobbler and his bride was a seamstress -- and they were good members of their community.Their children were born here… in the United States… and were each given a priceless gift at birth: citizenship. Because she was born within the borders of this nation, my grandmother instantly became a citizen, something that could never be taken away.

Or could it?

There is a growing movement in certain political circles aimed at ending the practice of birthright citizenship. It’s a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail, and the opinions on both sides are strong, even if the arguments are a bit weak.

The Fourteenth Amendment officially became part of the Constitution in 1868 and since then its opening sentence became the standard for recognizing who is, actually, an American. The amendment’s Citizenship Clause states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

There it is, plain and simple. If you were born here, you belong here. You’re one of us. (Of course, there are a few exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats.) But not everyone is happy about that.

Growing out of the long-running debate over immigration reform, the question of whether to continue the practice of birthright citizenship has taken its place as one of the key discussion topics in the current race for the White House. Candidates, commentators, and coffee klatchers are arguing, sometimes fiercely, about whether a baby should have such a right.

Naturally, those in favor of changing the status quo are quick to point to undocumented immigrants -- the so-called “illegal aliens” -- and calling for rejection of automatic citizenship for their children. Those who seek to preserve the 14th Amendment as is are just as forceful in arguing that its language was carefully selected to assure that all born here are given equal treatment despite the origins of their parents. After all, some of the first to benefit from the amendment were former slaves who previously had no legal claim to citizenship.

You can be sure that those on the side calling for change would claim that they are only concerned with the undocumented, that they would have no problem with granting citizenship to the children of immigrants who are here with legal documentation. But I have to wonder if it would stop there. Given the power to strip away birthright citizenship from one group, how could we stop the government from ruling that others are also not worthy? Couldn’t such authority lead to refusal of citizenship to people of a certain race or religion?

Couldn’t we see a government that would make such a change retroactive, thus revoking citizenship… and all of its privileges including the ability to vote… from existing citizens? It sure would be an effective means of shutting down your critics, wouldn’t it?

What makes me even more suspicious of the intentions of those pushing this movement is that we aren’t hearing anyone complaining about babies born of parents from places like, say, Norway or Italy or Canada. No, the argument is firmly centered on the children of immigrants who cross our southern border.

What’s further troubling is that the argument is coming from the political right, whose party is sorely lacking in support from the Latino community. Such an unbending stance against citizenship at birth… especially one that is clearly aimed at people who come to the USA from Mexico and other nations to our south… is certainly not helping the Republican Party in its efforts to include people of color under its tent.

That is, if the GOP is still making the effort.

I just read a report projecting the 2016 election turnout broken down by race and its results aren’t enthusiastic for a party that alienates non-white voters. In fact, a party that turns its back on people of color will find that it is virtually impossible to win on the national stage.

I'm not a political consultant, but if someone came to me and asked what I thought would be a good strategy, I'd suggest that being a party of ideas and goals makes more sense than building your platform on exclusion and turning back time.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald September 3, 2015.)

Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends

The Republican Party’s effort to regain the White House kicks into high gear with its first debate. While it’s tempting to say that these events are lessons in futility, there are some valuable takeaways that can be expected from these encounters. You can learn about a candidate’s ability to string together a few talking points into what sounds like a coherent statement. You can get a feel for whether the candidate has a personality, generally displayed by a good sense of humor. And you will probably notice a few who clearly don’t do their homework.

Most everyone following these assemblies will tell you that the Republicans allowed themselves to get bogged down with too many debates in the 2012 campaign. Really, what were they thinking when they agreed to twenty such gatherings? Halfway through that schedule it was clear that the party was opening itself up to way too much self-inflicted damage, as candidates rose and fell in the opinion polls based on how they attacked each other.

In this campaign, the party has shown some wisdom by paring down the list to twelve scheduled debates, the last couple of which are tentative and could be dropped entirely. Still, is there much of an argument to make that a dozen debates are going to be effective in choosing the best candidate?

Essentially, these are not debates in the truest sense of the word. A debate follows a few relatively strict guidelines, keeping to a formal structure, and its moderator is expected to maintain order with an iron fist. These events are better described as multiperson press conferences where the participants seem to do their best to avoid answering the questions as presented, instead repeating as much of their prepared campaign speeches, slogans, and taglines. But certainly we all know this: if you want real answers to real questions, don’t ask a politician… especially one who is actively running for office.

In the last cycle there were ten candidates participating in the Republican debates, though never more than nine at any one event… and only two of those had perfect attendance in all twenty. This time? Seventeen candidates have formally announced, but you won’t get to see them all in action at once. Thanks to the GOP turning over decision making chores to Fox News, the first debate is limited to no more than ten participants, as determined by where they rank in the latest polls. By essentially slamming the door in the other candidates’ faces, Fox News has been granted enormous power to effectively kill some campaigns while giving others a higher profile.

Fox News will argue that its methodology is simply reflective of public opinion and that the news/talk channel isn’t responsible for making the selections. Rather, it would say, the people surveyed by those polls are making it clear who they are most interested in seeing on the stage. But public opinion polls are a flawed source for facts. No two polling firms use the same criteria, ask the same questions, or even seek out the same type of respondents. Each poll is subject to interpretation, and those who read the tea leaves might not understand the message. Remember, up until late on Election Night, Mitt Romney and his team were convinced that he was going to win the presidency… based on opinion polls.

At least this time Republican voters can hope for a more serious slate of candidates. At least there’s no Herman Cain, who based his campaign on his “Nine Nine Nine” mantra which sounded more like a pitch for a pizza place than a political foundation. At least there’s no Michele Bachmann, whose glazed-over eyes looked like someone who was about to announce the departure schedule for the approaching Mothership.

Nope, this time the candidates are a group to be taken seriously.

Except… this time you have people like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a 2008 hopeful back for another crack at it… taking time away from his other job as spokesman for various quackery medications on the internet.

Except… you have Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and considered by many to be the worse leader of an American technology company in history. Notably, the company’s stock jumped when her forced resignation was announced, the news bringing in nearly three billion dollars in gains in a single day.

Except… you have Donald Trump, the current Republican frontrunner. It seems to me that the people who are excited about a Trump candidacy are the same people who think Sarah Palin is worthy of holding a national office. That pretty much tells us all we need to know about Trump.

I will be watching, and I encourage you to do the same. It’s better to be informed than clueless.

Come and see the show!

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on 8/6/15)